Allow separate registration of BaseServices and DynamicFrontends - V4 incompatibility with Finbuckle.MultiTenant per tenant authentication because of multiple IAuthenticationSchemeProvider injection

[LionelVallet]

It's primarily a Finbuckle issue, but these two libraries are often used together, so I want to highlight a compatibility problem.

The multitenancy framework decorates IAuthenticationSchemeProvider and currently supports only a single provider. However, with the dynamic frontends feature, a second provider is introduced, creating an incompatibility. As a result, Finbuckle's decorator throws an exception:

Finbuckle/Finbuckle.MultiTenant#989

Could you consider decoupling DynamicFrontends from BffBaseServices so that we can add one without the other? Currently, everything is done by AddBff(), and the methods AddBffBaseServices() and AddDynamicFrontends() are internal.

    public static IBffServicesBuilder AddBff(this IServiceCollection services, Action<BffOptions>? configureAction = null)
    {
        var builder = new BffBuilder(services);

        if (configureAction != null)
        {
            builder.Services.Configure(configureAction);
        }

        return builder
            .AddBaseBffServices()
            .AddDynamicFrontends();
    }

This could limit the impact for people who do not need dynamic frontends while waiting for a fix. And even in the long term, it avoids configuring unused services.

[maartenba]

@LionelVallet seeing the issue is closed now, what was the root cause/resolution?

[LionelVallet]

@AndrewTriesToCode has modified his library to handle multiple IAuthenticationSchemeProvider. (Finbuckle/Finbuckle.MultiTenant#989 (comment))
However, I still think it would be useful to make the addition of dynamic frontend services optional in your library.